Apple might be facing an EU antitrust probe

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by kaas

Harry,

while I do agree with you that the App Store is a good thing in itself because of its safety and ease of use, Apple could allow an independant "Indie Store" where you would install apps at your own risk and loose your "warranty for a proper functioning os and software (mind you, not hardware!)"- that means if you brick your phone, you have to fix it yourself or pay Apple to fix it for you. Manage access to the "Indie Store" via parental controls, and your kids should be safe (or as safe as they will be untill they jailbreak the phone). Add a legal disclaimer and most people would not buy from the other store, except for those who really want to.
If you are using a mac or pc at home, you will know about freedom of choice and personal responsibility as you can install any program you wish- including malware...

cheers,

kaas

p.s.:@rhadin --> she is 9 years old and still sweet as a puppy

The problem with this is since the phone is bricked, there is no way to tell what is on it. You take your phone to the Apple Store, they fix it and then discover you have garbage apps and you refuse to pay for fixing it.

I'm completely opposed to an indie store. If you want to go indie, there already is cydia.

[Worldwalker]

I think it's a perfect example of the Apple vs. non-Apple mentality.

Apple: If we let people have choices, they might make bad ones!

PC/Linux/etc.: You're a grown-up, go ahead and brick your system if you want to.

Personally, I prefer the freedom to make my own choices, knowing that the price of this freedom is eternal vigilance and good anti-malware programs. Obviously there are plenty of people who want to be taken care of. But wouldn't an "Apple Approved" tag in the App Store be sufficient for them? Does it have to be made impossible for them to do anything that Apple doesn't sanction?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I think it's a perfect example of the Apple vs. non-Apple mentality.

Apple: If we let people have choices, they might make bad ones!

PC/Linux/etc.: You're a grown-up, go ahead and brick your system if you want to.

Personally, I prefer the freedom to make my own choices, knowing that the price of this freedom is eternal vigilance and good anti-malware programs. Obviously there are plenty of people who want to be taken care of. But wouldn't an "Apple Approved" tag in the App Store be sufficient for them? Does it have to be made impossible for them to do anything that Apple doesn't sanction?

And your option is to jailbreak your iDevice, knock down one of the garden walls.

[kaas]

Originally Posted by Tamara

You take your phone to the Apple Store, they fix it and then discover you have garbage apps and you refuse to pay for fixing it.
.

I believe this can be settled as in any other store where you decide to withhold payment for products/ services received...

[kaas]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And your option is to jailbreak your iDevice, knock down one of the garden walls.

Would you buy a computer which you would need to jailbreak before being able to install third party apps? This is not a true option...

cheers,

kaas

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I think it's a perfect example of the Apple vs. non-Apple mentality.

Apple: If we let people have choices, they might make bad ones!

PC/Linux/etc.: You're a grown-up, go ahead and brick your system if you want to.

Personally, I prefer the freedom to make my own choices, knowing that the price of this freedom is eternal vigilance and good anti-malware programs. Obviously there are plenty of people who want to be taken care of. But wouldn't an "Apple Approved" tag in the App Store be sufficient for them? Does it have to be made impossible for them to do anything that Apple doesn't sanction?

One of the issues with that is that a misbehaving app could break not itself, but other apps running on the system, leading to issues for their developers. I really, really like the "approval" process for the App Store. It's not a guarantee of quality (there's some utter rubbish on offer) but it is a guarantee that the app doesn't do anything undesirable on the system, such as use unpublished APIs. That latter is a real benefit for the consumer, since it minimizes the chance of an app breaking as a result of a firmware update.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kaas

Would you buy a computer which you would need to jailbreak before being able to install third party apps? This is not a true option...

Shrug.
If you count the iPad as a computer, I have.
It is what it is. Apple run a closed ecosystem, if you want to fiddle with the device you have to take a definite step to do so.
This policy has produces devices that 'just work', don't have inter-app dependencies or conflicts, don't require certain versions of libraries to be installed, etc... You just download an app and run it. This has proven very successful, and they aren't going to change it.
If you think of people who want to fiddle with their devices as 'you', and the public who just want to use the devices as 'them', you have to realise that there are massively more of them than there are of you.
Apple is happy to simply let you go somewhere else, rather than compromise their 'mass-market' appeal.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kaas

Would you buy a computer which you would need to jailbreak before being able to install third party apps? This is not a true option...

Oh, and it is incorrect to say you can't install third-party apps.
Indeed almost all the apps are third party ones.
They just have to be 'blessed' by Apple first.

Plus if you want to fiddle, download the SDK, signup for the developer program and write whatever you want, you can download to your own devices without going through Apple approval.

[HarryT]

20 years ago, kaas, I would have been the first to wholeheartedly agree with you. I used to love tinkering with computers. Now I just want something that I can switch on and use, and which is reliable. A sign of old age, I guess .

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Apple vet each app because it is allowed into the App store.
This is also viewed as a disadvantage, as it slows down app updates and means Apple can easily block apps they don't want, for changeable reasons.

How do they vet it? Suppose I program something that will trigger in a year. How can they detect that? Will they read the code? How many hours will they spend reading the code in that case?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

How do they vet it? Suppose I program something that will trigger in a year. How can they detect that? Will they read the code? How many hours will they spend reading the code in that case?

They don't vet it in the sense of reading the source code - they do vet it in terms of scanning it to ensure that only published APIs are used. Eg, there is no published API to reformat the file system on an iPad - any app which attempts to do so via an unpublished interface is probably up to no good.

[kaas]

Originally Posted by HarryT

) but it is a guarantee that the app doesn't do anything undesirable on the system, such as use unpublished APIs. That latter is a real benefit for the consumer, since it minimizes the chance of an app breaking as a result of a firmware update.

This should be everybodys choice, not apples. If you are willing to risk it, you should be able to bear the consequences (as in pc's, macs, or linux systems).

I am really curious how it all will develop...

cheers,

kaas

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

20 years ago, kaas, I would have been the first to wholeheartedly agree with you. I used to love tinkering with computers. Now I just want something that I can switch on and use, and which is reliable. A sign of old age, I guess .

Same here, I used to build my own PCs, run linux and love fiddling with things.

Indeed Apple embodies things I used to (and in many ways still do) despise, they are so about style over substance, you get the feeling they really could polish a turd, paint it white, put a single button on it and sell millions.

Then you look at threads about people trying to install something on a windows mobile device, and have issues with where it has downloaded the file to, not having the right versions of libraries, etc...; or android devices, and some don't have the right OS version, some are locked so one app store will work and another won't, and you realise that Apple does do some things very well.

[kaas]

Originally Posted by HarryT

20 years ago, kaas, I would have been the first to wholeheartedly agree with you. I used to love tinkering with computers. Now I just want something that I can switch on and use, and which is reliable. A sign of old age, I guess .

I understand you completely Since I started working and earning a good salary, I also prefer paying others to fiddle for me. I just like to have the choice, for the one time that I might want to tinker around myself - just in case (it is not impossible, just improbable)

I think the App Store (and Apple philosophy) is ingenious and well deserving of praise for ease of use, design, and security. I just resent that there is no choice, even if in choosing you would loose some of the ease or the security...

cheers,

kaas

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They don't vet it in the sense of reading the source code - they do vet it in terms of scanning it to ensure that only published APIs are used. Eg, there is no published API to reformat the file system on an iPad - any app which attempts to do so via an unpublished interface is probably up to no good.

Are you not running machine code? Can you not encrypt you code so you cannot detect what it will do? Why is not methods used to break into computers possible to use to hide code that is not allowed?